Prison System Issues/Discussion

[Civet]

I'm starting this thread because I didn't want to derail the "RIP UK Justice" thread. One of the posts in that thread reads as follows:

Yes, and that is certainly one of the problems of the US prison system. Essentially, anyone who is unpopular enough with the hardest elements of the prison will be punished by the other prisoners. This incentivizes gangs and the hardening of relatively inexperienced criminals. I think the US penal system is utterly atrocious.

This makes a lot of sense to me. Forcing people into tough, abusive environments seems like a good way to make those people tougher and more abusive. Of course, I don't actually know a lot about this issue (plenty of anecdotes, no personal experience or proper data) so I'm making a lot of assumptions. Is any prison system in the US currently trying a "softer" approach to the prison environment? What kind of results are they getting?

 

[The Don]

Anything other than a harsh prison regime tends to play very badly in the press with stories about prisoners enjoying luxury accommodation and victims and their families understandably being unhappy about that.

The issue is that, as you point out, custodial regimes like that tend to turn out hardened prisoners. Other countries take a different approach and Scandinavia in particular is noted for having "cushy" prisons (and comparatively low levels of recidivism).

That said, Scandinavia has a very different culture, in particular they seem to have a much greater willingness to consider the common, rather than individual, good so a system that works well there, may not translate well to the UK or US.

 

[angrysoba]

For me it is not a question of whether prison is too hard or too soft. I think that prison certainly shouldn't be a pleasant experience, but when people crow about how certain prisoners are going to be beaten and raped by other prisoners then it seems prisons are soft if you are hard and hard if you are soft and that it almost selects for the kind of criminal characteristics that we should want to discourage in prisoners.

 

[Giz]

For me it is not a question of whether prison is too hard or too soft. I think that prison certainly shouldn't be a pleasant experience, but when people crow about how certain prisoners are going to be beaten and raped by other prisoners then it seems prisons are soft if you are hard and hard if you are soft and that it almost selects for the kind of criminal characteristics that we should want to discourage in prisoners.

The punishment endured by prisoners should be determined by judge and jury following due process. It shouldn't be down to the whim of some other inmate with a shank.

Doesn't mean that it should be nice, just that it is for society to set it.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The problem is a fundamental disagreement about what prisons are for it seems.

If they are for correction then it seems that a softer approach is preferred. If they are for punishment then the harder the better up to and including criminal activities perpetrated upon each other while inside.

The US in particular tends to quite an aggressive approach it seems. I'm always quite shocked by how aggressive and confrontational US policing seems to be for example.

 

[Agatha]

The majority of prisoners will be released at some point, so prison needs to be rehabilitative as well as retributive. A system where gangs are in charge, and some prisoners are at risk of violence from others is unlikely to rehabilitate people such that they can hold down jobs and not return to crime on their release.

Education, psychiatric treatment for those who need it, programmes to overcome addictions, programmes on recognising the impact of their offending and reducing the risk of further offending, and work that benefits the wider community are all a far better use of prisoners' time than pointless busywork. But all those cost money and require decision-makers and fundholders to take a long term view, which doesn't tend to match the short-termism of the election cycle.

 

[ahhell]

Mostly posting because I want to follow the conversation but...

The goal of prisons should mostly be to reduce recidivism but in the US it seems to mostly be punishment. I understand the emotional appeal of that but its not very helpful for society. There is some research out there that this may be partially be a down side to diversity. In less diverse places, like the Nordics, people are more empathic towards their fellow citizens.

I think we need the following reforms.
a. End the drug war, this will improve society in many ways but relieving pressure on the justice system is high on that list.
b. Make it illegal to ask if folks have been convicted of a crime on Job applications. This will give ex-cons a chance at reform.
c. We should spend more on education in prison than we currently do technical, professional, and general education. But I really think the first 2 reforms are more important.

 

[crescent]

b. Make it illegal to ask if folks have been convicted of a crime on Job applications. This will give ex-cons a chance at reform.

I almost agree with this one, but not quite. I think it might be acceptable to ask if the person was convicted of a crime that relates to the job being applied for (ETA: Especially if the conviction was recent, or repeated). The catch being, that might be hard to define.

If an accountant has been convicted of fraud and embezzlement and applies for a job at a financial institution, they ought to be able to know about that. They don't need to know about the time he got a DUI, or beat up his ne'er-do-well brother-in-law, or the time he got caught streaking. But if he has been convicted of crimes that relate to the nature of the job he is applying for, it is different.

One can imagine other jobs that might screen for specific crimes. The dude with two convictions for assault should not get the job as a prison guard or with the police force, or at the nursing home. The guy with a recent history of drug abuse should not get the job at the pharmacy, perhaps not as a heavy equipment operator (screen for crimes associated with X drug (not just any drug) within the last X years[not forever]). Day care and other work with children, and other lines of work could also have specific crimes they screen for.
Your other two points are dead-on, though.

 

[Metullus]

*snip*
b. Make it illegal to ask if folks have been convicted of a crime on Job applications. This will give ex-cons a chance at reform.
*snip*

Would you include people convicted of sex crimes against children when applying for school or child care positions? Or embezzlement when applying for banking jobs? Or perhaps assault convictions when applying for law enforcement positions?

 

[baron]

b. Make it illegal to ask if folks have been convicted of a crime on Job applications. This will give ex-cons a chance at reform.

Reforming doesn't involve erasing history. The employer should have the facts at their disposal in order to make a decision. It should be up to them whether a conviction reflects negatively on the applicant. If someone is sacked from their previous job for being lazy we don't suggest that it be made illegal for employers to ask about job history, on the grounds that this will give ex-lazy people a chance at reform.

In relation to prisons, in the UK at least, it seems too much a case of one size fits all. There needs to be much more granularity in the prison system. At the moment murders mix with people who haven't paid their TV licence, drug addicts with drug dealers. Sometimes rehabilitation is paramount and punishment need not be a factor. In other situations punishment and incarceration should take priority. These demand different environments and different approaches.

 

[ahhell]

Would you include people convicted of sex crimes against children when applying for school or child care positions? Or embezzlement when applying for banking jobs? Or perhaps assault convictions when applying for law enforcement positions?

I think crescents suggestion is appropriate. If the crime has a direct bearing on the job, ie, pedophiles and kindergarten teachers. Other than that, it just means an ex-con will have trouble getting a job at a gas station.

 

[Metullus]

I think crescents suggestion is appropriate. If the crime has a direct bearing on the job, ie, pedophiles and kindergarten teachers. Other than that, it just means an ex-con will have trouble getting a job at a gas station.

That's the rub, no? Who decides whether or not a crime has a direct bearing on employment? If I own a Stop-and-Go market the customer base of which is largely school children, would that qualify? Or if I am a contractor that does a lot of work on K-12 schools, should I be able to ask? A fair portion of my work requires security clearances of one kind or another,. should I be required to hire employees without first determining whether or not they are likely to get those clearances?

 

[baron]

That's the rub, no? Who decides whether or not a crime has a direct bearing on employment?

Obviously the best person is the employer.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Reforming doesn't involve erasing history. The employer should have the facts at their disposal in order to make a decision. It should be up to them whether a conviction reflects negatively on the applicant. If someone is sacked from their previous job for being lazy we don't suggest that it be made illegal for employers to ask about job history, on the grounds that this will give ex-lazy people a chance at reform.

But they were in prison to fix that problem. If they are coming out they should be "cured" so to speak.

 

[baron]

But they were in prison to fix that problem. If they are coming out they should be "cured" so to speak.

Yet we all know that prison rarely has that effect, and even if did it should still be up to the employer to make the decision. Indeed, in a world where no prison inmate re-offended, a report of a previous conviction would be a positive recommendation, as the prospective employer would be guaranteed that the person would not commit another crime, unlike a person with no criminal record.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yet we all know that prison rarely has that effect, and even if did it should still be up to the employer to make the decision. Indeed, in a world where no prison inmate re-offended, a report of a previous conviction would be a positive recommendation, as the prospective employer would be guaranteed that the person would not commit another crime, unlike a person with no criminal record.

How about we make government financially responsible for recidivist crimes?

 

[ahhell]

That's the rub, no? Who decides whether or not a crime has a direct bearing on employment? If I own a Stop-and-Go market the customer base of which is largely school children, would that qualify? Or if I am a contractor that does a lot of work on K-12 schools, should I be able to ask? A fair portion of my work requires security clearances of one kind or another,. should I be required to hire employees without first determining whether or not they are likely to get those clearances?

It is the rub but as it is now we basically don't give ex-cons a chance at reform.

on a slightly different track. I thought that maybe we could try and find a method of incentivizing private prison operators based on recidivism rates. Give bonuses or penalties to operators based on how likely their former convicts are to re-commit after 5 or 10 years of freedom. That might encourage some experimentation aimed at actual reform.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

How about we make government financially responsible for recidivist crimes?

Private prisons wouldn't like that. They like recidivism.

 

[luchog]

Private prisons wouldn't like that. They like recidivism.

And that is exactly the point.

The American prison system is working exactly as intended. It was originally designed to perpetuate the institution of de facto slavery, after de novo slavery had been explicitly outlawed. Which was also the reason that prisons have always had a disproportionately high rate of incarceration for minority populations.

At a time when prisons were undergoing substantial reforms to reduce this effect, to enact education and job-skills training programs, eliminate the use of prison labour, and reduce overall recidivism, the Private Prison Industry was founded to bypass those reforms, and take over the role of slave master. It's not by coincidence that this happened concurrently with the biggest escalation of the War on Drugs in its entire history, and the largest mass incarceration of non-violent offenders since the Reconstruction days. It was shortly to benefit from the widespread adoption of "Three Strikes" laws, which though its lobbying efforts it helped to support.

This period also effectively cemented the school-to-prison pipeline for black and other minority communities.

Dropping crime rates, liberalization of drug laws and elimination of Three Strikes statutes, widespread abuses within the system, and the failure of reforms in many states to end prison labour in publicly-run institutions, kept private prisons from becoming a much bigger industry and taking the lion's share of inmates. As it stands, those that remain typically have contracts that mandate a minimum inmate population, and their lobbyists still work hard to push privatization. A lobbying effort which has seen some success, as the Trump administration has rolled back the Obama administration's push to eliminate federal use of for-profit prisons.

 

[Agatha]

b. Make it illegal to ask if folks have been convicted of a crime on Job applications. This will give ex-cons a chance at reform.

Here in the UK, any job or voluntary role that brings a person into contact with vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, those with mental health problems etc requires the applicant to have a DBS check. Having a criminal record does not exclude someone from taking up a post, as long as their conviction isn't related to the job/voluntary role for which they are applying.

I volunteer for the Samaritans, and there are fellow volunteers with criminal convictions, but not convictions related to offences against vulnerable groups.

I think it is necessary for some employers to ask about criminal convictions; employers will not want somebody who has been convicted of theft being in charge of the petty cash or the company bank account, even if that person has entirely reformed!